What Is History': Critical Analysis

1. Historians and facts are too much related because if there is no historian then there are no means of storing facts. This is because no one can interpret thoughts and they will be useless. E.H. Carr also said that facts are just like the ordinary past. But a historian according to his point of view selects an ordinary fact and converts that ordinary past into a known fact. He said a historian is the only person who starts the process of selection, this is because a historian is the one who knows the fact and allows the people to think in a direction in which he directs them. Everything we study now in history was a dead past at a time a historian is one who gives it a life. They depend on each other. If there is no historian how the future generation will be able to get the knowledge of those facts that happened in past? Every time new facts came and historians interpret them in their own way. Now it is totally depending on the historian and how he explains it. It is a never-ending dialogue; it continues from generation to generation. E.H Carr explained in his book this by giving an example that supposes we go to a fish market we buy that fish in which we are interested and which gives good taste to the family and whoever eating that dish, similarly, historians are surrounded by so many facts they pick up a fact and interpret it in their own way and that explanation shows the mindset of that historian. Hence, we have so many explanations of a single fact. Fact is the same it cannot change but interpretations are different and differ from historian to historian. C.P. Scott said facts are not adulterated, they are sacred but opinion is free, anyone can change it and explain it in their terms. The historian can change their opinion but not the fact. But some opinions or interpretations can be changed like the Battle of Hastings was in 1066, now explanation or interpretation of this fact is fixed, no one can change this year they are fixed no historian can mess with that. They have to show it as it is and there is no need of praising a historian for this because being accurate is their duty. For example, if we going to build a building, then it's the duty of the architect who is going to build that building, to build that accurately. Similarly, it's true for historians. It is good for a historian to be accurate but it is not possible every time because let's suppose they have to find how old a fossil is. They cannot tell it accurately because it needs a whole process of science. Therefore, historians have to rely on the ‘auxiliary sciences’ of history which contain epigraphy, archeology, numismatics, chronology, and so forth. If something is found like a fossil, a piece of marble, or maybe pottery then historians can not deny the fact that it belongs to that particular period, this is a fixed fact. But they can explain the uses of that object or that thing in their own way. For example, if they found a plate for early civilization, they may suggest it could be used for eating at that time, any other can suggest it could be used for placing food safely, etc. This may differ as per the historian. Now, E.H. Carr talking about medieval times. They thought to do people at that time who believe in religion and he noticed that people are focused on religion at that because whatever found from their period depicts something about religion. If something about religion is found written on those things it directs us to the thought that those things were written to keep it safe and means that people at that time are too much serious about religion and it was one of the most uplifting things at that time. Even though history is based on facts but after interpretation, it will not remain factual because whatever history we study is not actual fact is, it is what the historians tell us in their way we study only that part. Actual facts always remain away from a reader. Therefore, we are continuing to move forward on the explanations given by historians. Whatever they say we rely on it but strictly speaking we are studying a series of already accepted judgments. According to Lytton Strachey, ignorance should be the first requirement of a historian. He said this because the world is full of facts and a single fact itself contains too much information if a historian tries to reach every piece of information everything would get messed up. Hence, the ignorant nature of a historian will allow him to classify things more neatly and simplification of things will allow people to understand them easily. In his book, E.H. Carr said it is necessary to study a historian before studying history. He said it because whatever we study comes through the mind of a historian and his mindset shapes the fact that he wants to explain. As we know that we can not study pure fact therefore, it is good to study the best explanation which depends on historians. A historian always includes class conflict, the economy of the time about which he is writing, means of production, etc., despite whatever the fact is, he includes this in his book. Hence, it becomes important for us to look carefully to study approximately as well as possible. Again E.H. Carr is comparing facts with fish but now from a different perspective, he said facts are like a large number of fishes swimming in the ocean and we put our hands in water and pick up a fish and we find a fish that we want. Then it may be a stroke of luck or it is also possible that only that fish comes to our hand just because we want only that fish. Similarly, the world is full of fact but historians' eyes fall on those facts only which belongs to their field of interest.